Saturday, January 23, 2010

Boys Will Be Boys

When are the supposedly responsible gun owners going to start taking responsibility for this? Children, usually boy children, like to bring daddy's gun to school. Are the numbers of these cases insignificant enough to be ignored? They appear in the main stream news more often than DGUs, to put it mildly. Here's today's sampling.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said Thursday she charged a 10-year-old boy with bringing an unloaded handgun to his Detroit school.The boy has been charged with carrying a concealed weapon, possessing a weapon in school and minor in possession of a firearm in public.

I'm sure gun folks are in favor of putting all the focus on the 10-yar-old and none on the grandfather, whose gun it was. This is how they continue to shirk their responsibility.

The student has been charged with unlawfully carrying a firearm and having a gun at a prohibited location — both third-degree felonies. Also, the student will face a mandatory one-year expulsion, officials said.

A meeting for parents has been scheduled at the school's cafeteria at 7 tonight to discuss the incident, officials said.

They're going to talk to the parents. I should hope so.

What's your opinion? Don't you think the laws and the attitudes are too soft on the parents of these kids? The one boy is 10-years-old, for crying out loud. Why do gun owners continue to defend these appalling examples of improper gun security in the home? Is the dilemma faced by gun owners about how to keep the gun safely away from children yet sufficiently accessible for an emergency too much for them to cope with? Do they tend to fault on the side of accessibility at the cost of safety and security?

13 comments:

Does the school accept responsibility for the "gun free zone" failing? Couldn't they also do more? Or are gun free zones just a way to shirk the responsibilty of providing a safe environment, seeing that criminals ignore them anyway?Do you think we need the "Gun free zone liability act" to encourage actual enforcement?

We can't make guns disappear, and we wouldn't if we could, so what do we do?

If they live in my home and are under my authority, why, yes, yes I do accept responsibility to whatever extent the law requires it.

Your question is, of course, nonsensical and a false equivalency. The term "responsible gun owner" would, to any thinking individual, imply that the gun owner was, in fact, responsible in his behavior re: operating and securing his weapons--whether at home or outside his home.

No matter how you deal the cards, the final guilt must lie with the gun owner who allowed the conditions to exist that enabled an idiot kid to pick up and take the gun.

Listen, I have a question which might be worth a new post.The Supreme Court just ruled that Corporations have the same rights of free speech as an individual does regarding campaign contributions.This effectively gives them a much louder "free speech" than you or I coud ever hope to have.Followeing the logic that corporations are "people too" in regards to the first amendment, doesn't it seem that the other individual rights of the constitution apply to them as well?Like the second amendment?

I don't defend parents who let these things happen. And parents are always held responsible for the actions of their children. But that doesn't mean I should be held responsible for the actions of other people's children -- my own are plenty, thank you. And my guns are always secured.

But DGU's happen multiple times a day, even if you just go by what Claytom Cramer posts (or do a google search yourself) and most don't make it into the news. But these stories do make it into the news because they're so rare.

Micro, Thanks for a fascinating angle on this. Corporations will have a more powerful 1st Amendment right than individuals.

I like Stephen's point too. Gun owners shouldn't be held responsible for the misdeeds of other gun owners' children. Except of course in the collective sense. Gun owners who work hard to resist and limit sensible gun laws, are indeed, if only indirectly, responsible.

"Except of course in the collective sense. Gun owners who work hard to resist and limit sensible gun laws, are indeed, if only indirectly, responsible."

Gun laws limiting the rights of all gun owners, not just those who are irresponsible is one way to go. Another way to go is harsher penalties for the offenders. Personally, this is the side that I am on.